In Weinstein’s theory, called Geometric Unity, he proposes a 14-dimensional “observerse” that has our familiar four-dimensional space-time continuum embedded within it. The interaction between the two is something like the relationship between the people in the stands and those on the pitch at a football stadium - the spectators (limited to their four-dimensional space) can see and are affected by the action on the pitch (representing all 14 dimensions) but are somewhat removed from it and cannot detect every detail.

In the mathematics of the observerse there is no missing dark matter. Weinstein explains that the mass only seems to be missing because of the “handedness” of our current understanding of the universe, the Standard Model of particle physics. This is the most complete mathematical description physicists have of the universe at the quantum level and describes 12 particles of matter (called fermions) and 12 force-carrying particles (called bosons), in addition to their antimatter partners.

“The Standard Model relies on a fundamental asymmetry between left-handedness and right-handedness in order to keep the observed particles very light in the mass scale of the universe,” says Weinstein.

He says his theory does not have the asymmetry associated with the Standard Model. The reason we cannot easily detect the dark matter is that, in the observerse, when space is relatively flat, the left-handed and right-handed spaces would become disconnected and the two sides would not be aware of each other.

I assume the experts are now tearing this theory apart to see if there’s any flaws in it. If it holds true, there’s at least 150 sub-atomic particles waiting to be discovered.

Signature

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

I like that a hedge fund consultant (someone currently out of the mainstream of experts) can come up with a theory of everything that has to be considered. Since String Theory has been going nowhere, I hope that there will be those, who have the wherewithal to do so, who will devise experiments based on Weinstein’s theory.

Signature

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

I like that a hedge fund consultant (someone currently out of the mainstream of experts) can come up with a theory of everything that has to be considered. Since String Theory has been going nowhere, I hope that there will be those, who have the wherewithal to do so, who will devise experiments based on Weinstein’s theory.

Actually, he’s not all that far from the mainstream. Wall St. firms have discovered that people who’re really good at math can come up with incredibly complicated formulas that allow them to make big bucks. Apparently, a number of ex-NASA engineers wind up working for Wall St. firms because the demand for rocket scientists isn’t all that high.

Signature

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The full-timers who have been busting their butts for decades with string theory in mind (even though it has essentially been untestable) will probably not take kindly to a guy, who has never written a scientific paper, that comes up with purportedly elegant unifying mathematical theory (in his spare time), that if correct, means they have been essentially wasting their time, energy, and brain power for years upon years.

Signature

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

The full-timers who have been busting their butts for decades with string theory in mind (even though it has essentially been untestable) will probably not take kindly to a guy, who has never written a scientific paper, that comes up with purportedly elegant unifying mathematical theory (in his spare time), that if correct, means they have been essentially wasting their time, energy, and brain power for years upon years.

You mean if it can’t be tested by experiment then it is likely to be pseudo-intellectual BS ???

The full-timers who have been busting their butts for decades with string theory in mind (even though it has essentially been untestable) will probably not take kindly to a guy, who has never written a scientific paper, that comes up with purportedly elegant unifying mathematical theory (in his spare time), that if correct, means they have been essentially wasting their time, energy, and brain power for years upon years.

You mean if it can’t be tested by experiment then it is likely to be pseudo-intellectual BS ???

psik

Like string theory? I guess. But my fear is that because Weinstein’s theory came out of left field, that it could be summarily rejected without ever being subject to testing… at least for an inordinately long time.

Signature

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.